The debate is always very hot on the reliability of scientific studies. A study, even if precise, well conducted and valid must be read for what it is: relating to the news it provides without concluding anything, even before a striking result.
This means that there is no certainty in science and there are not even "definitive" studies.
The scientific novelties are not infallible, eternal or dogmatic, Popper teaches that even the most obvious and plausible scientific knowledge is always surmountable, improvable and substitutable, up to being also demonstrable with time. A scientific theory:
must be publicly controlled by anyone, and therefore willing to undergo any evidence of forgery. If it comes out unscathed from such tests the theory is good to solve such a problem, if it comes out falsified the theory is not valid, it is not scientific, and in any case if it proves valid it would sooner or later be replaced by a better theory.
"Scientism" is a negative extremism, so much that a scientific discovery, to be considered such, must be falsifiable. Since there is no "eternal" scientific discovery, every innovation denies the previous one. Something that seems a contradiction but instead has defined scientific thought in a more modern and realistic way.
This means that science is not a motionless dolmen, it is at most the moment we live it but sooner or later it will move and it is also the response to criticism that comes from many "alternative" thinkers: science believes have the truth in hand.
It is not so. Science can not have the truth in hand, by definition: by training, a scientist is someone who evolves and continuously changes knowledge, acquires new ones and with these transforms old ones. At the limit, science has knowledge in hand, because everything is relative to the time it lives.
MAQ/June 2018 /180